VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (letter)

Pilot seniority

March 03, 2007|By Karin Matusiak

La Grange Highlands — While two letters to the editor make outstanding points on why commercial pilots' retirement age should not be raised from the current 60 years to the age of 65, citing health concerns, there is one point that neither letter writer nor your "Gray hair in the cockpit" Editorial on Feb. 10 addresses. Many pilots want to put off retirement solely for financial reasons.

Commercial airline pilots' pay is based on seniority, hence their pay scale. From the size of the aircraft they fly to the hours in a month they work, it all is determined by where they rank in the seniority list at the domicile that they are based. Their seniority at their base is the ultimate factor in determining which aircraft they fly, which will determine their hourly flying rate. The only way that a pilot can advance in seniority is if a pilot senior to him or her quits, dies or retires from the company.

Pilots have sacrificed much over the past five years. Most have had to endure substantial pay cuts and reduction of benefits, and some have had a substantial reduction in retirement benefits. And now a small group of pilots wants to delay the pilots junior to them the opportunity to reap the benefits that they have had during their careers, for another five years.

I have read articles in numerous publications in which pilots state that that they "live to fly." While I do not question their sincerity, I do question why none of them mentions the additional five years of income at generally the highest rates in the business, and for some carriers, the benefits that would be eliminated for them if they would retire at age 60.

Would these men and women still be interested in flying for their carriers at age 60 plus one day as the most junior co-pilot in the system taking the substantial decrease in pay that comes with their new position? What if they agreed to that without any additional benefits and no additional funds placed in their retirement funds?

In my opinion, the number of pilots who "live to fly" would be reduced substantially.